Loading...
Minutes-PC 1963/09/16City Ha.:y Anaheim, California September 16, 1963 A RBGUTAR MEETZNG OF THB ANAHBIM CITY PLANNING CQMMISSION 3HGUTAR MBBTING - A Regular Meeting of the Anaheim City PlanniAg Commission was called to order by Chairman Mungall at 2;00 0'Clock p,M „ a quorum being present, FItH3HP1T - CHAIRMAN: Mungall. COd9dI38I0NBR8: Camp, Gauer, pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. Ho~N~ - COhAlISSIONBR3; Allred~ Chavos, PRB3HNT - 2oning Coordinator; Deputy City Attorney: Office 8ngineer; PSanning Coma~ission Secretary; Plaaning Department Stenographer: Martin Kreidt. ~ Furman Roberts. Art Daw. Aan ICreba. Jacqueiine M, Suliivan, INiV~ON - Reverend Donald Gard, Pastor of Pirs~ Preabyterian Church~ gave the Iavocation, PL8DG8 OP - Commisaioner Rowland led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Plag, ALI.~GIANCH A~~~• ~P - A p p roval'of the winutes of the meeting of 9eptember 4~ 1963, was THB M~ INUTBB heid over to the meeting of 9eptember 30, 1963. RBCIASBIPICATION - CONTTNUED pUBLIC HBARING. PANNY gHOWALTffit, c% DSCON C~tPOitATION, N0. 63-64-8 and 1833 8ast 17th 8treet, 8anta Ans~ California, Owner; DBCpiV CqtPO~ RATIO~V, 1833 8eat 17th Street~ 8anta Ms~ Cslifornia, Agent; CONDITIONAL USB ~roperty deacribed as: An irregular portioa of land ha~ing a PffitMIT N0. 430 frontage of 1,266 feet on the weateriy aide of the Riverside Preeway, the weaternmoat boqndary of eub,~ect property being SSO feet east of the ceaterline of Jefferaoa 9treet, eaid property beiag further deacribed es P(~tTION N0. 1 and PCI~TION N0. 2, P~tTi~i N0. 1 being loeated ia the City of Annheim~ PO~tTION N0. 2 beiag located ia the County of Orange. property pseaeatly c1~s~ified aa R A, RBSIDBNTIAL AGRICULTURAL~ ZONB. RSQU8aT8D CIABSIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPI.B PAMILY R89IDBNTYAI., ZONB. RSQU83T8D CONDITIONAL USB: BeTAHLIdH A OQVB AND TWO ~TdtY MULTIPLB PAMILY PIANNBD RSdIDENTIAL DBVBLOPMgNT WITH CARPatT9 - WAiVB ONB-BTCRY HBIGHT LIMITATION, Sub,~ect petition wae continued from the meetieg of Jnly 22 snd Auguet 19, 1463~ in order that the petitioner might have eufficent time to eubmit revised plaaa iacorporating suggeationa mede by the Commieaioa, No one appeared to represent the petitioaer. - 1768 - ~ ~ '' ' -~ - __-- ~ ---_---....-----..._--------._~_._.------_~__._.___..~___.___.,.._,_ - __ __ .,,...: . _ _ _ ~ ._~: lt _ v ~ ~ i • i ` .~ ~~ MItiUTS3, CITY PLANNING COMMI83ION, 3eptember 16, 1963, Continued: ~ !'!'! 1769 RBCLA53IPICATION - Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed the number of coatinuances NO. 63-64-8 requested by the agent for the petitioner in order to allow sufficent.time for ~he submission of revised plans, and that said CONDITIONAL U9B plans had never been submitted. ~~4tMIT N0. 450 (Continued) THB FIDARTNG WAS CLOS&D. Commissioner Camp offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-8 and Conditional Use Pe=mit No. 450, to the meeting of October 28, 1963, and to notify the petitioner and agent of the Commission actioa. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRISD. A letter was received Sater in the meeting from the agent for the petitioner requesting a ~~~y ;,~~o ~~;,:g~~_o~~p~ hz~ action taken by the Commissioner was not rescinded. RSCIA93IPICATION - CONTINUHD PUBLIC HBARING. BL9IH M, and WILLIAM B. PURDY, N0, 63-64-11 1243 Placentia Avenue, Anaheim, California, Owners; JIM HODGBS, 1709 South Brookhurst Street, Aaaheim, California, Ageat; property CONDITIONAL USE described as: An irregular shaped parcel of laad having a PBRMIT N0. 453 froatage of 255 feet, the western boundary of said property beiag approximately 450 feet east of the centerline of State Coilege Houlevard, and further described as 1243 North Piacentia Avenue. Property presently classified as R A~ R8SID8NTIt.i. AGRICULTURAL, ZONH. RHQUBSTBD CIABSIPICATION: R-3~ MULTIPLS PAMILY RB9IDHNTIAi., 20NB. RHQUH3TBD CONDITIONAL U9H: D BLOPgMBNT WITH CARPatTSTAND WAIMV~tYOP Ttffi ONH-SITOdtYT~ HBIGHT LIMITATION. A letter was read to the Commiasion from the ageat for the petitioner requesting withdrawal of psoceedings oa Petitions for Reclasaification No. 63-64-11 and Conditional Uae Permit No. 453, since sub3ect petitiona had been auperaeded by Petitione fur R~claseification No. 63-64-29 and Conditional Uae Permit No. 469, approved by the Planning Commisaion~ 9eptember 4~ 1963, No oae appeared in oppoaition to aub3act petitioa. THg I~pRING WA8 CL088D. Commiesioner perrY offered a motion to recommead to the City Council that all ~etion oa petitions Eor Recl~esificetion No. 63-64-11 aad Coaditioaal Uee Berrait No, 433 be termiaa4ed, beeeuse the petitioner had reque~ted withdrswal of e~id petitions in view of the fac4 that sub,~ect propezty had beea coneidered by the Commiesioa ia a iater reclasaificatioa raqueat~ namely, Reelaesificatioa No. 63-64-29 rnd Conditioaai Uee Permit No. 469.~ Commiaeioaer Camp aeconded the motion. MOTIOti CAARIBD. . R~CLABaxPICATION - PUBLIC FIDARINQ. PAANK W. afld BDI1H ROSS 9ACR,8TT, c/o L-(3-d P10. 63-64-30 CORPCAATION~ 2120 9outh Main 8treet, aanta Aaa, Caiifornia, Ownersi CHARLBa G. ~CHI.EGBL, 433 West Sighth Sbreet, 8an4s Ana, • CONDITIONAL U88 Califoxnia, Ageat; property described as: An irregular ahsped PBRMIT N0. 470 pareel of land cuneisting of two portioas. PORTION "A" having a frontage of approximateiy 200 feet on the north aide of Lincoln Avenue~ 230 faet on the aorth eide of Wilahire Avenue, and an svc~rsge depth of Z00 feet. PCRTIOt~1 "B" beia~ approximately 364 feet by 332 feet, and txing ad,~~ceat and aorthasly of Postioa "A". 'fia ea~tesly boundary of said de~cribed property baing ~-DP=oa,imately 483 feat we~t of the caaterliae of Carleton Avenue. property pre~ently e:,a~~ified in the A-A, R~SIDBNTIAL AS~AICULTUAAL~ ZONB. RSQU88TBD CLAbaIPICATIONs PORTION A- C-l, NBIGHBORHOOB COD9d8RCIAL~ 20N8. POATION 8- R~3~ MULTIPLS PAMILY R88IDBNTIAL~ 20N8. RBQtJBSTHD CONDITIONAL USSt PdtTI01V„A - 8aTA8LIbH A~SRVICB STATIOTI AND AHSTAURANT. paRTI0i~1 B- B~TA9L~eH A TE~t88-STOA'Y APARTMSNT COMPLBX - W IVBR OP TF~ ON8-~TOAY HSIGHT LIMxTATI4P1 P.ND TH8 1~ pARKIN(i ~ aPACH PIDt DWBLLINO UNIT IN A(iARA(3H at pAAKINB 9tALL, PARKIN~ !l~1LL SIZB, TO PffitMIT UTILIZATION OP UNDBRf~t0U1VD FAR8IN0. _._~_...__.__-- -..._.._.____.._.__.__-------...--•--._--------___~-------------_____~. ~~ ~-- , ~ _ _ ,_...._. ; , : :,~ -------- -._._ _...._ _._.._.__ __ ..__. , ~ ~ . > ~' ~ ~ ` ~ ~ 1 MINUTBS, CITY PIANNIN6 COMMIS3ION, September 16. 1963, Continued; 1770 t ~ RBCLASSIPICATION - Subject petitions were contiriued from the meeting of September 4, 1963, ~ N0. 63-64-30 in order that revised plans iacorporating carports for the existing ~ parking area adjacent to the cul~de~sac, possible additional ingress j CONDITIONAL U3B and egress to the subterranean parking, and reports from the ~ PffitMIT N0. 470 Fire Department and the Traffic Bngineer. ` (Continued) f Mr. Lippincott, speaking fcr the petitioners, appeared before the ~ Commission and reviewed'the revised plans, noting that considerable ~ modification had been made to the subterranean parking constituting a considerable improvment, that the proposed commercial de~velopment would be constructed of ateel and concrete, that the first phase of development would be the coaunercial development, and that the multiple family development would be started just prior to the completion of the commercial development, because simultaneous development was unfeasible until additional financing was approved. Commissioner Sides left the C,cur,ci2 C:haraher at 2:17 P.M. A letter of opposition fram the owner of commezcial property fronting on Lincoln Avenue and adjacent to subject property, objecting to the proposed barricading of the alley between Diamond and L:ncoln Avenues. The requested reports from the Pire Department and the T:affic 8ngineer were read to the Commission, said reports indica:ing that the Pire Department required that the proposed development meet all provisions of the Anaheim Uniform Building Code, and the Traffic Hngineer indicating that he did not object to the proposed exit to Wilahire Avenue~ since the traffic from the proposed development would not congest or create a hazardous condition to said street. Discusaion was held by the Planning Commisaion relative to the land use as proposed by the petitioner, and felt this wouxd be compatible to the area, but stipulated that construction of the multiple family development be commenced prior to final bu3lding inspection of the reataurant and the sexvice atation in order to preveat any hardahip case at a later date on the rear portion of the property. Commissioner Sides returned to the Counc3l Chamber at 2:25 P.M. THH HBARING WA9 CL03BD. Commisaioner Perry offered Resolution No. 902 3eries 1963-64, snd moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commisaioner Pebley, to recommend to the City Councii that petition for Reclasaificatioa No. 63-64-30 be approved~.sub,~ect to conditiona, (See Resolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolwt:aa was passed by the following vote: AYSB: COhMISSIONffil9: Camp, Gauer~ Muagall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlend, ~idea. N088s CQNMISSIONBRS: None. ABSSNT: COh9+fI89~ONBA9: Allred,~Chavoa. • • Commiaeioner Pebley offered Raoolution No. 903, 9exiee 1963-64, and moved for its paseage and adoption, aeconded by Commiasion Perry, to grant Petition for Conditionai Uae Permit No. 470 be approved, sub,~ect to conditioas. (3ee Reaolution Book.) On roil eall the foregoing reaolution wes paesed by the fol3owiag vote: A~: COMMISBIONH39: Camp, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowiand, Sidea. N088: COMMI88IONBRB: None. ABSSNT: COMMI89IONBRB: Ailred, Chavoa. ,~; I I i ~ i ,' ,..__-- -- -----__..._ ____~, - ` ~ --- -,. . _ _....-. i"E, MINUTBS~ CITY PLANNING COhAtISSION, Septemter 16, 1963, Continued; 1771 RBVISED TBNTATIi~E MAP - OWNBR DBVBLOPBR: BROOKMpRg INCORPORATHD, 1665 Brookhurst OP TRACT N0. 5162 and Street, Anaheim, California. HNGINBER: MCDANIBL BNGII~BffitING. 222 East Lincoln Avenue, Anaheim, California. Tract No, 5162 RBVI3BD TFNTATIVH MAP located on the north side of Bali Road approximately 200 fee* OP TRACT N0. 5260 easteriy of Brookhurst 3treet, covers approximately 4 acres, is proposed for subdivision into two (2) R-3, Multiple Family Residential, Zone, lots; Tract No. 5260 located on the east side of Brookhurst Street, approximately 400 feet northerly of Ball Road, covers approximately 9.3 acres aad is proposed for subdivision into nine (9) R-3, Mult::~,le Pamily Residential, 2one, lots. Subject tracts were considered in conjunction with each other. Zoning ~oordinator Martin I{reidt noted this was the secoad revision for each tract. Commissioner Gsmp offered a mot±on to approve Revised Tentative Alap of Tract PIo. 5162, subject to the following conditions; 1. That should this subdivision be developed as more than oae snbdivision, each subdivision thereof shall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5162 is graated subject to the approval of Reclassification No, 62-63-113 and Conditional Use Permit No. 423, 3. That the vehicular access rights, except at street and/or a11ey openings to Ball Road~shall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim, Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. Commissioaer Rowland offered a motion to approve Tentative hiap of Tract No. 5260, subject to the foilowing conditions; 1. That should this aubdivision be developed as more than one subdiviaion, each subdiviaion thereof ahall be submitted in tentative form for approval. 2. That the approval of Tentative Map of Tract No. 5260 is granted aubject to the approval of Reclasaification No. 62-63-113 and Conditional Uae Permit No, 423 3. That Lot Nos. S and 9 ahall be noted oa the Pinal Tract Map aa aot s buildabie aite, and aha11 be indicased for reereatioasl uae only. 4. Thst the aceesa righta to the aliey ead Minerva Avenue, aiong the eaat iine of Lot No. 8 ehall be dedicated to the City of Anaheim, S. That e modified knuckle eha11 be provided at the northerly terminua of Minerva Avenue, aub3ect to the approvai of the City 8ngineer, Commisaioner Perry aecoaded the m~tioa. MOTION CARItIBD. ; 1 _ _ . ___. ,_..._...._................_. ~ ~._.____.__....__...__.._.__.._._.._ _.___. ... -;~ ( `~ (~ d ~.. ~ 41 ~' _ _... ` .~ _ ._ _. .--------~--~ __ .. ~'i ~ _l v . ~ : , , MINUfES, CITY PIANNING COMMISSION, September 16, 1963, Continued: 1772 ~ s i REVISED TENTATIVE - DEVELOPER: ARDMORE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, 1129 Westwood Boulevard, Los ? MAP OF TRACT NOo Angeles 24, Californiao ENGINEERs Engineering Service Corporation, 1127~ 4620 and West Washington Boulevard, Los Angeles 15, Californiao Tract Noa 4620 : REVISED TENTATIII~ located at the intersection of the Flood Control Channel and the Santa An~i MAP OF TRACT NOo Freeway, northwesterly of Crascent Avenue, covers approximately 307 acres~ 4621 and is proposed for subdivision into a R-3, Multiple Family Residential, ~ Zone lot; Tract Noo 4621 located at the intersection of the'Flood Control~ Channel and the Santa Ana Freeway northwesterly cf the intersection of Crescent Avenue and the~ Senta Ana Freeway, covers approximately 607 acres and is proposed for subdivision into 3 R-3, ~ Multiple Family Residential, Zone lotso ~ i Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidi reviewed subject tracts noting a reduction in recreational space and the relocation of some of the units, ag possible solutionso ! No one appeared to represent the develu~er~ The Commission inquired of Deputy City Attorney Furman Roberts whether it would be possible ~ to continue consideration of sub3ect tracts if the developer were cortacted by telephone, ; since the Staie Subdivision Map Act required action by the Commission within 40 days after ? the filing of a tract mapo ~ The Commission deferred action until Office Engineer Arthur Daw contacted the developer, who ~ then sequested a two-week continuance~ + Commissioner Gauer offered a motion to continue consideration of Revised Tentative Maps of ~ Tract Nos~ 4620 and 4621 to the meeting of September 30, 1963o Commissioner Perry seconded '; the motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ': CONDITIONAL USE - PUBLIC FIEARINGo CRESCENT EUCLID ANAI-IEIM CORPORATION, SO1 North Loara ~ PERMIT N0~ 473 Street, Anaheim, California, Owners; MEREJIDO JIN~NEZ, 619 North Euclid Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permissian to ESTABLISH A DRY CLEA1ViNG SHOP on property described as: A rectangular shaped parcel of land located on the northwest corner of fuclid Street and Crescent Avenue and 620 feet on the west side of Euclid Street9 and further described as 619 North Euclid Streeto Property presently classified as C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD CONOu~RCIAL, ZONE~ Mro Jo W„ Randolph, representing Weber Aircraft, manufacturer of the dry cleaning equipment, appeared before the Commission to answer questions9 and stated that the perpo-ethylene was non-flammable~ No one appeared in opposition of subject petitiono THE HEARING WAS CLOSEDo Ctumnissioner Gauer offered Resolution Noo 904, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Perry to grant Petition of Conditional Use Permit Noo 473, sub~ect to condit~ons~ (SeQ Resolution Booko) . _ . .. On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following vote: AYES COMMISSIONBRSs Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides> NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONEo ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Allred, Chavoso r, _ ._._--r_~ __ -~ ~ , , i • ~ , ,~ - ~ `: (~ ; ~..~ t"'? ~ , i MINUTBS, CITY 2'LANNING COI~AtISSION, 3eptember 16, 1963, Continued: 1773 ! CONDITIONAL USH - PUBLIC HBARING, MARTO MBRCURIO, P. O. Box 252, Pullerton, PERMIT AId. 474 California, Ow~er; STHPHHN A. HffitNISHIN, 535 Citadel Lane, Anaheim, California, Agent; requesting permission to BSTABLISH A PAMILY BILLIARD CBNTHR - WAIVB RBQUIRHD PARKING SPACBS on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 50 feet on the south side of Lincoln Avenue and a depth of 135 feet, the easterly boundary of said property being 134 feet west of the centerline of Olive Street, and further 4escribed as 332 Bast Lincoln Avenue. Propert~+ presently classified as C-2, GHNBRAL CO[~PlBRCIAL, ZONB. Mr. Stephen Hern:.shin, agent for the petitioner, appea•red before the Commia3ion and state3 his intention was to establish a billiard center that would be an asset to the community and provide family entertainment in a pleasant atmosphere, Mrs. Theodore Prohn, 119 South Olive Street, appeared in opposition to subject petition and stated that the proposed use was an added undesirabie usa for the area in wnich subject property was located, that residents in close proximity to subject property were aiready being subjected to unp).easant elements from the theater, tavern and liquor store, that the proposed use would only serv~ to inject additional unpleasant and detrimental elements to the easteriy area of the downtown Lincoln Avenue area, and that the waiver of the required parking in close proximity to her property was an added ? , concern. t The Coinmission also raN:essed concern for the area in which subject property was located, that the theatei seemed to be a major concern, that a less deairable use was a possibility in the existing zone~ such as a cocktail lounge~ and that if the proposed x billiard center were opcrated in accordance with similarly existiag family billiard ~ centers,then it would be considered a more compatible use. In response to Coamission questioning regardiag the serving of alcoholic beverages, ~ ~ the petitioner stated his intention, at this time, was to serve beer only, which is a , permitted use in said zone. } Tf~ HHARING WAS CLOSHD. ~~ :, It was noted that the proposed parking to the south which did not meet Code require- ~ b u t would be acceptable since the Commission feit that the propoaed use did not ~ necessitate any additional parking, but that the parking apaces be maintained as indicated on the plana, should be deliaeated. ; i Commissioner Perry offererl Resolut3on No. 905, Seriea 1963-64, and moved for its ~ passage aad adoption, seconded by Commiasioner 9idea to grant Petition for Conditionai Uae Permit No, 474, aub3ect to conditions. (See Resolution Book.) , On roll cali the foregoiag reaolation was pasaed by the following vote; AY83: COI+fl+lI9SI0NffitS: Camp, Gaue=, Mungail, Pebley, Peszy, Rowlaad, Sides. _ i N0~83: COhAlI39IONBRB: None . ~ ; AHSBNT: CaMMiS3I0NBR3: Ailred, t;havos, a i i CONDITIONAL U3B - PUHLIC HBARING. WILLIAM JBNNINGS MSBSHCAR, 446 3outh Popiar, • ' PBRMIT N0. 475 Brea, California, Owner; ROBHRT 3, GARDNffit, 823 Weat 8alboa j Boulevard, Halboe, Caiifornia, Agent; requeating permisaion to : BSTASLISH AN AUTQMATIC CAR WA3H INCLUDING 3AL8 OP GA30LINB oa i property deacribed as; A rectangular parcei of land with a frontage of 132 feet on • ~ the south aide of Ba11 Road and a depth nf 450 feet, the weaterly boundary of said ; property being 453 feet eset of the centeriine of Brookhurat Street, and further described as 2154 Bail Road. Property preaeatiy claseified as R-A, RB9IDHNTIAL A(~ICULTURAL, 20N8. ~ Mr. Robert Gardner, agant fo~ the petStioae~~ appenred before the Qommiaeion and ' reviewed the proposad plana~ aad a,~eo reque~btd t~at th~ propo4ed bu~ldiag be i permitted to he malarged to a~ maximum langth of 200 feet st soma futare d4te. ~ i ii ! . ~ ------~----,--_ ___._._ _ __ _ __ _ _._.._ _---- ---~____. ----- ------_._, . 1 _ __._ ~ . . S _ _ : ` _ '~~ - t _ ~ ___~..._ '_ _-'_ "_. _... _ ._'_.____ ,_..... .. _ _ . -.- . \ ~ •~ ~ MINUTS:i, CITY PIANNING COhVdI3SI0N, Septembes 16. 1963, Contiaued: 1774 CONDITIONAL USH - The Comnissicn discussed at some length the many factors involved in pHRMIT N0. 475 the development of subject property; as~d expressed the opinion that (Cou~inued) the Coc~ission did aot oppose tue car wash structure being constructed to a maxioum length of 200 feet, that the vacant propert; southerly of the proposed ~ark:ag a:ea shoud be naved with aspl:alt, excepting the westerlq 6 feet adjacent so an existing masonry wall, which the peti~.ioner had requested he be pezmi;ted to landscape, that the fiag supports which extended beyond the roof line of the proposed structure be eliminated, and that the building setback coaform with the established setback of Lhe commercial structures to the wr.at of sub,jeet property. Commisaioner Camp offered Resolution No. 906. Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, secoaded by Commissioner Rowtaad+to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 475, subject to conditions. (See Resoictioa Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the followiag vote; pygg; COMMIS3IOAIDRS: Camp, Gauer, Mungaii. Pebley, Fes=y~ Rowland, Sides. iVVna: ~wuu°v~~~.~Q: N4ne= ~-ggHNT; COhA4xSSICS~TSR3: Allred, Chavos. CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC tffiARING. SHIRIBY J• WALL, 1409 Skqline Drive, Pullerton, pffit.~;TT N0. 476 California, aad NANCY ANN IAIIDBR+ 1754 Catalpa Avenue~ Anaheim, California, Owners; on property deseribed as; A rectang~lar parcel of laad at the southeast cozner of East Street and Topaz Avenue~ with front,ages of 109 feet cn Hast Street, and 150 feet oa Topaz Avenue, and further described as 8'0 South Bast Street. Property preseatiy ciassified as R-1, OI~ PAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. Commissioner Pebleq left the Council Chamber at 3:45 P.M. Mr. Leonard Metcaif, speating for tue petitioaezs, appeared before the Commission and stated the ownera are presentiy cu~ducting a similar operation at another location, and that he would be pleased to answer any 9uesLions. Mr. Onas Ripperton, 1216 Topaz Street, appeazed before the Co~nissi.on ix~ opposition to subject petitioa, and presented a petition signed by 32 propertq owners in close proximity to subject property~ and stated that the proposed use would be a disrupting commercial use in a highly desizable resideatial community aad, therefore, would be incompatible. Mrs. Robert Curtis, 1219 lbpaz Street. ia opposition stated that a hazardoua traffic condition would be created bq the childrea being traaspo=ted to and frow the nuraery at the busieat time of the day. tbat Bast Street abuttiag to the west, was already s heavily trsveled and congaeted street. that to avoid the~e traffic hazarda cara would be uaiag the cul-de-sac stseet to tura :round rrhea trariaportiag children to and from the nuraery~ that this then would place the amall childrea living ia the area in ,~eopardyo and thst the noiee frow the child=ea at play could aot be blocked out by the exiating meeonry wa11 which wae not s six (5) foot masonry ~rall. ~ _ Mr. August Betker, 1207 Bast Hampahire 'treet~ in oppoaition, stated tlut hia property abutted aub,~ect property to the south. that he ;~1 purchased hie home becauee of the deairable reaidential azea, but that if eo~ezeial uaes were to be permitted in the area~ that rezoning of a11 the propeztq ehould be uaiform throughou! the area. Commisaioner pebley retur~,ed to the Couacil Chamber at 3:52 P.M. THB F~ARING WAS CL098D. The Commiasioa diacuased the poaaibi2itq of commercial eacroachmeat iato thia residentiai area~ and aoted Lhat although a reai estate office exiated wiLhia a block to the aouth, that M-1 property was to the xest. that the propoaed uae would be incompatible, that the reaidentiai integrity of the uea ahuuld be maiatained, that approviag the propoaed uae would be granting a privilege aot enjoyed by othera ia the area, and that a traffic hazard wouid be created becauae Baat Street nsa alreadq a heavily traveled atreet. Commisaioner Perry offesed Reaolution No. 907~ Seziea 1963-64, aad moved for ita paesage and adoption, aeconded by Commisaiasiez Siders. to deay Fetitioa for Conditional Uee Permit 1Vo. 476, baaed oa the facta thst the pzopoeed uae wouid be incompatible, thst thie repreaented coamaercial eacroachmeat iato a resideatial srea, that the traffic hazarde would increaee oa an alseady heaviiq tzaveied etzeet. (See Reaolution Hook.) On roil call the fosegoixag se+~olu~i~a .:o: 'rs:s=d bY tht €ollowing vote: Aygg: ~q~MIggIpNBRSe Camp~ Gauer, Muagall~ Perry~ ~owland, 8idee. NOBB: co~iasior~xa: None. pgag~: ~~!lI~SIpNHAg; Allsed~ Chavos. AH9TAIN: CpdM1ISSI~[~1ffit8: Yebiey. _ - ~-- --- - ---_ _ _-._ _ --- ------_.._.. • . a,'~. ~--T- ~ . _ ...~ ~_l ~ M3~!'ES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, SEPTENBER 16, 1963, Continued: .: ;, ~:~ ~ 1774-a C~TIONAL USE - PUBLIC HEARING. LAROY A. 8 MILDRED E. TURNER, 305 North State PERMIT N0. 478 ,. College Boulevard, Fullerton, California, Owners; requesting . permission to ESTABLISH A SERVICE STATION on property described ass A square parcel of land at the northwest corner of Idagnolia Avenue and Broadway with frontages of 135 feet. Property present".y classified as C-1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZOI~. Mr. Robert C. Runyon, engineer far Standard Oil Company, appeared before the Commi~;sion and stated'that he was available to answer questions. The Commission inquired whether the Standard Oil Company had plans for con~truction of a more compatible architectural design for service stations, that many.of.the oil companies had plans.for service stations near residential areas which had the design of the station in harmony with the area. Mr. Runyon stated that his comoany was attemntina to initiate archite.c.turallv_compat;hla service stations, but that they u'id not wish to lose the familiarity of design prev- elant throughout the United States. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. T(~ HEARING WAS CLOSED. Co~renissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 908~ Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioner Gauer, to grant Petition for Conditional Use Permit No. 478, subject to conditions.tSee Resolution Book) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the following votes AYES: CO~NNISSIONERS: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, Sides. NOES: COMMISSIONERSs None~ AHSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Ailred, Chavos. ---•---__.___.~_ ____.__...---._._..._---_~_ _.~ _ _ _ ... y -_-__.,-_ ~-- ----~ ' ~ -- - ~! . i ~ ,/ „ . ,- ~ i • 1 _ _ ,.~ ~ (, ) ~.~ ~ MINUIB5, CITY PLANNING COMMIS3ION, September 16, 1963, Continued: 1775 CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING. JANH H. BRIGIiT, 12651 Greentree~ Garden Grove, PBRMIT N0. 480 California,~Owner; requesting permission to HSTABLISH A N[kt3ffitY SCHOOL on property described as; A rectangular parcei of land with a frontage of 120 feet on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, the southerly boundary of said property being 345 feet north of the centerline of Cypress Street, and further described as 325 and 331 North Harbor Soulevard, property presently classified as R-3, MULTIPLB FAMILY RH3IDENTIAL, 20NB. Mrs. Jane Bright, the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and reviewed the proposed use of subject property, noting that a aumber of changes were required to be made in order to have the nursery school approved by the State Department of Welfare, that said changes could not be made in time for the Commission's consideration, that the location of subject property was ideally located to surrounding communities aad the freeways, that children between the ages of 2~ and 6 years would be accepted, that the hours woald be from 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and that the nursery school would be an asset to the community. In response to questioning by the Commission, the petitioner stated that the play time for the children would be between 8:30 and 10:00 a.m., that the children wouid be using the Harbor Boulevard entrance, and would not be using the alley to the west when being brought to school, that a paient would be required to beiag the child into the school and then be checked in by one of the instructors, that the 3tate had requested that partitions be removed to give more and larger school area, and that the petitioner had purchased subject property. Mrs. Lydia Buchelt, 401 North Harbor Boulevaxd, appeared in oppoeition to aub3~ct petition, and presented a petition signed by 3? owners of property in a aquare block area ad,jacent to sub,~ect property also expressing opposition to aub,~ect petition. and atated that she owned two garcels ad,jacent to and across the a11ey from sub,ject property, that all the residents of the area were older persons who have been in the area for a aumber of years, that only one child reaided in the area, that a number of persons opposing aub,~ect petition had been present but had to leave, and that the propoaed coamercial use of aub,ject property would depreciate the residential environment of the area. Mr, Itobert Wurgaft, appeared in behalf of his mother who was an invaiid reaidiag immediately to the aouth of aub3ect property oppoeiag aub,~ect petition, and atated that the proposed uae would be incampatibie to the area, and that the natural noiaea children made at play would be detrimental to the health of his mother. In rebuttal~ the petitioner $tated that it was importaat that chiidren had a proper plaee for development, that if aubject petition were approved, it was being propoaed to be uaed ea an experimeatal achool for atudeate of Chapmsn and Orange 8tate Colleges, and that ehe had diecusaed the pxopoaed achool with a numbbr of educatoze in the County who favo*ed the propoaed use, Commiat~oner ~auer atated thnt sltk~ough he wae in fnvor of z~ursaxy echoole, theee achoole_ muet be in +-n a~ea where ao oppoaition waa ~~iced to the eatabliahment•of eaid achoole. 1H8 F~ARING WA8 CIA9SD. The Commiasion diacuaaed the proposad uee ia cloae proximity to the siagle family howea to the weet of aub3ect pxopexty, that the uee of eub,~ect propesty aa propoeed woald place a commercial uee in the ceater of sn ~sea zoned for mu],tiple family deveiopmeat, and preaeatly developed se auch, and that a hardehip could aot be claimed ia the developmen4 of aubJeet propesty, because the exiating zoniag permitted property develop- ment. Coamieeioner Pebley offered Aeaolutioa No. 909, 8eriaa 1963-64, and moved for ita paeeage aad adoption, eeconded by Commiasioner Sidee to deny Peti.tion for Conditioaai Use permit No. 480, based on the fact that the propoeed use was iaeompatible to the aiagle fs~aily reoiden4isl environment to the tveet, the exietiag multiple family residentiai to the north and south, and the propoaed uae would add aa •dditional traffic hazard to a heavily traveled atreet, aad that all the propasLy ownere in the atea oppoaed aub,~ect petitioa. (See Reaoiution 8ook.) On roll csil the foragoing reeolution was paaeed by the foliowing vote: AYSS: CAA;FiIS~Z~VffitSp Cau~y~ Gats~r, 61u:.gel1, Peblay, 8¢.:y, Row1:7d, Sides. NOBS: COMMISSIONffit8: Noae. ~~898NTs COhA4ISbI0NBRas Ailred~ Chsvoa. _.___..._.._--------._.__..___ __...---,. . ~ ~ ~ i ' t _. ~~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING C01~9~1F3SION, September 16, 1963, Continued: 1776 CONDITIONAL USB - PUBLIC HBARING, GLORIA H, and ROHBRT M. MILLBR, 1530 South Harbor pffitMIT N0. 481 Boulevard, Anaheim, California, Owners; requesting permission to HXPAND AN HXI3TING MUTHL on property described as: A rectangular parcel of land with a frontage of 86 feet on the east side of Harbor Boulevard and a depth of 610 feet, the northerly boundary of said property being ?85 feet south of the centerline of Manchester Avenue, and further described as 1530 South Harbo= Boulevard. Property presently classified as R-A, RESIDSNTIAL AQtICUL- T[JRAL~ 20NB. Mr. Robert Miiler, one of the petitione*s, appeared before the Commission aad reviewed the proposed expansion, noting that two-story construction was proposed to be developed approximately 370 feet from the street, that a number of kitchen units was being proposed, and if this were not permitted, the units would be eliminated, since develop- ~aeat plans were for only a portion to be constructed this year. The Commission informed the petitin.~er that in the past the Commissian limited 4_±~ho~ fp~;~zto~ ~n lOq~ of any r~otel, si.nce they felt that some families visiting Disneyland preferred to use kitchen facilities. The petitioner then stated he planned to build 5 units with kitchen facilities or slightly more than 10% of the uaits. No one appeared in opposition. TI~ HBARING WAS CL09HD. Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No. 910, Series 1963-64, arnd moved for its passaEe and adnption, seeonded by Commissioner Camp to grant Petition for Conditional Use ?ermit No. 481, sub,~ect to conditions. <See Reaolution Book.) On roll call the foregoing resolution was passed by the foilowing vote: AY89: CaNASI99I0NBR8: Camp, Gauer, Mungall~ Pebley, Perry, Rowland, 8idea. NOBS: CQDlMI99IONBRS: None. AB9BNT: COMMI38IONHAB: Allred, Chavos. CONDITIONAL U8H PHRMIT N0. 283 gnd TBNTATIVH MAP OP TRACT N0. 4996 - A request was received to eoneidei Conditional Uae Permit No. 283 at the evening aesaion. Commissioner Pebley offered a mot3on to postpone the public hearing of Conditioaal Uae Pesmit No. 283 to the eveaing session as requeated. Commiaeioner Camp aeconded the motion. MOTIUN CARRIBD. RBCB98 - Commisaioner Gauer offered a motioa to recesa the meeting for dinner and seconvene at 7:00 P.M. Commiaeioner Pebley seconded the motioa. - MOTION CARRIHD. • RHCONVBNS - Chairman Mungall reconvened the regular meeti.ng at 7:08 P.M., a11 Commiasionera being preaent, except CommiBaionera Allred and Chavos. CONDITIONAL U9B - PUHLIC HBAAING. MORTION G. RODIN, 252 8outh Robertaon, Heveriy Hiils, PffitMIT N0. 283 Cmlifornia, Owner; requeeting permisaion to coasider the ADDITIONAL WAIVBR OP (1) GARAGB RHQUTA8M8NT TO PBRMIT Tt~ CONBTRUC- ~BNTATIVB MAP OP TION OP CARP~tT~, (2) RBQUIRBD LOT WIDTH, (3) RBQUTAHD LOT ARBA, AND TRACT N0. 4996_ (4) RBQUIItBD ACCHSB TO LOT9 PAOM PUBLIC 32RHBTS at ALLEYS on property deacribed as: A rectanguiar parcel of land with a 330 foot froptage on the weet side of Haster 8treet and u depth of 630 feet, the southeriy boundary of said property being 330 feet north of the centerline of Orangewood Avenue, and further described aa 2041-2051 Haster 8treet. Property preaently clasaified as A-3, MULTIPLB PAMILY RHSIDSNTIAL~ 20NB. ~ C' ------- ~ ---- - - ~._ ._ _ ._ ... __. _ -.____ . . . ._.._.._ --- - __ _ _ __ _ _ __ - --- -----~ .~~. . . it _ . , ~- - _ T i • 1 -__._ . ., -- -- ' --_ ._ - % '. l_,f ~ '~` MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3eptember i6, 1963, Continued: CONDITIONAL USB - PBRMIT N0. 283 TBNTATIVB MAP OP 1RACT N0. 4496 17' Subject tract, located on the west side of Haster Street appror.imately 300 feet north of Orangewocd Avenue, covers approxi- mately 5 acres, is proposed for division of air space over subject property in~o 252 cubicles of air. (Continued) Zoning Coordinator Martin I{reidt reviewed for the Commission past action on subject petition, noting that subject petition had been readvertised because the carports had not been requested under the original request, although pians had been approved with carports later by the City Council, aad that although the petition stated the division of land, the engineer had indica}ed at the Interdepartmental Committee meeting that air space would be subdivided, Mr. Morton Rodin. the petitioner, appeared before the Commissioa and stated that the carports had aiready been constructed, and were awaiting final buildiag inspection, The Commission disucssed the requirement of finishing the iaterior of the carports and instaliation of storage cabinets and bumper guards, that approval of the carports might be given, and the balance of the request for waiver of lot widths and lot areas, together with the tentative tract and the CC&R's if land were proposed for subdivision, it might be continued until the petitioner determines whether air space is to be subdivided or land. No one appeared in opposition to subject petition. Deputy City Attorney Purman Roberts advised the Commission and the petitioner the time required by the City Attorney~s office for submission of CC&R's and approval of same. THS HBARING WA3 CIA9BD. Commissioner Gauer offered Resolution No. 911, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, secanded by Commissioner Perry, to graat Petitioa £or Conditional Use Permit No. 283, i:i part by granting the waiver of the required garages, but thst the carports shall be finiahed on the interior~ and storage cabinets and bumper guards inatalled, (gee Resolution Book.) On roll cs3.1 the foregoing resolution wes passed by the following vote; AYffi: COMMI3SIONBRB: Camp, Gauer, Mungall, Pebley, Perry, Rowlaad, Sides. NQB3: COI~AlI38ION8R3 : None . ABSBIVT: COMMISSIONffitS: Allred, Chavos. Commieaioner perry offered a:n~~tion to reopen the hearing snd continue conaideratian of the baiance of the requeat for waives of the required lot w'_3tha 3nd areas uader Peti4ion for Conditioaai Use Permit No. 283 and Teatative Mep of Tract No. 4496, until the meetiag of September 30, 1963, by which time the petitioner would have aubmitted the required CC&lt•.e to the City Attorney, if he had determined that lsnd.was_propoaed to be aubdivided in the Tentative Tract. Commissioner bidea aeconded the motioa. MOTION CARRIBD. RSCIASSINICATION - PUBLIC FIDAAING. PAUL C. CARTffii~ 203 South Buah 8treet, Anaheim, N0. 63-64-32 California, Owner; LOY A. COX, 2861 Gerald Circle, A.naheim~ California, Agent; requeating thet property describcd as: A rectangular parcei of lead having a frontage of 50 feet on i:he weat aide of Hush Street. and a depth of 1S5 feet, the northern boundary of aeid property beiag appzoximately 432 feet south of the centerline of Liacola Avenue, and further deacribed as 203 8outh Buah Stree2, be reelsasified from the R-1, ON8 PAMILY RBSIDHNTIAL, ZONB to the R-3~ MULTIPLB PAMILY R83iD8NTIAL, 2~V8 to conatruct a 4-ur~it apartment building. Mrs. Audrey Waraoff, repreaenting the agent for the petitioner, appeared before the Commieaion aad revicwed the propoeed petition together with exieting land uees in the ares, indicating that 33 apsrtmenta preaeatly exiated within the bloek ia which yubj~ct property wae located. ~ _.._... _ ._ - __-- -- __ - - __ _.. _.__-_.----.. .__ __-.-~--- - - __ - -;ii~ ~, ~ _ _.. _ _ _ . ... 1 _ ,~ ----------------. ~.. ._ -- --- - ~ , , ~ ~_~ ~ ~ ,3~ n :_ MINUTBS, CITy pIpNNING COMMI3SION, September 16, 1963, Continued: 1778 ' ~ RBCLASSIFICATION - The Commission reviewed the plot plan and noted that the proposed ? N0. 63-64-32 structnre did not have adequate ingress to the trash storage area ~ <Continued) for trash truck pickup, that a 60°b coverage was being proposed, and ' that a grapestake fence was proposed for the north and south '• property lines. ~ The agent for the petitioner replied that a small door on the easterly side of the a proposed garages provided access to the trash area as well as leading to the alley, r Miss Bernice Swain~ 129 South Bush Street, appeared in opposition to sub'ect ' ~ petition, stating that the street was already highly congested with cars from existing apartments parking on the street, that if the Coma~ission would require partitions between the '' garage spaces~ that this might encourage the residents in the apartments to use the x garage since there would be more privacy, and that the proposed R-3 was located between ° two singie family zoned homes and lots, that there should be a six (6) foot masonry wall, ~ but the wail existiag to the south ended abruptly at the front property setback. ~ s The Coarmission in reply to the ~nposition stpted :h~„ ;2:e wali ahouid extend to the ~ sidewalk, but should be stepped down to 42 iaches in the front yard setback. 1H8 FIBARING WAS CLOSBD, ~~ The Commiasion discussed the possibility of requiring one garage for storage area aad trash pickup, that the extra garage was seldom required in a 4-unit structure, that the alteration to a 9-foot garage might set a precedent if the Commission wo~:ld require any deviation from Code requirement, that the question of access to the trash storage area might be solved if the southerly garage were used for trash storage and pickup, but said gs~rage wouid need an accessway from the main structure, and that 'the Commission might consider a change to garage requirements in the outer fringes af the downtown area where narrow deep lota r~ere converting to 4-unit apartment buildings, for a requirement of 4 garages with the normaliy :equired Sth garage being utilized for trash atorage aad pickup. Mra. Warnoff suggested that conversion of the Sth garage migth be a condition of approval. Deputy City Attorney Parman Roberts stated normaily the conditions of approval other than street dedication and improvement, and street lighta were not attached to a reclasai- fication of property, but would be a requirement of a coaditional use permit, aad that miaor chaagea were permiasible by makiag theae changes sub,~ect to Development Review. Commisaioner 9idea offered Reaolution No, 912, Seriea 1963-64~ and moved for ita passage and adoption, aeconded by Commiasioner Camp to recommead to the City Council that Petition for Reclaaeification No. 63-64-32 be approved aub,~ect to developmen~b iA accorderrce with all R-3 Code requirementa~ that the southerly garage have an opeaing to permit ingreae from the main atruct~:e, thst !he required six (6) foot masonry wali for the north and aouth boundariea be stepped down to 42 inchea in the front yard eetback and other conditione. (aee Reeolutioa Hook.) Oa soil call the foregoing reaolutiQn was paoeed by the foilowing vote: A1~: COHAlI8810N8[t8: Camp, (iauer, Muagail, Febley, Perry, Rowland, 3idea. N~: COMMI83IONBRa: None. ASffHNT: COMMI88ION8AS: Ailred, Chavoe. RBCLA~9IPICATION - PUHLIC I•IDARING. AL ROBBRTS PLYMOUTH, INC., 10080 Gardea Grove ~ N0. 63-64-33 8oulevsrd, aesden Gzove, California, Ownera; ALBBRT D. ROBBRTS, j 10080 Gsrdea Orove Bouievard, Garden Grove, California, Agent; requesting that property deecribed as: An "L'~ shaped parcel of ~ denthhofi160afcetn{the southeasteraocorner of}aaide ro ~t A~i~ea88treet and sn average ~ p ' P D Y g pproximately 19S feet north of the centeriine of 8r11 Road, and further described as 1125 South Loa Angelea i 9tr.eeL, be reclaasified from 4he C•x, NBIOHBORHOpD COhAfBRCIAL~ ZONB bo khe C-3~ HBppy ' CaAfHRCIAL, 20N8 to establish e ue~d car agancy as a conforming uee. ~ _- _- ---__.. ---~__--_.._._-- --___..._--_...._._------__.._._-- ~-- - --~_- _ ~ i ~.---~._._.. _: % , , o ~ ~ ~ .:.~7 ~ ~ ~ '! ~ ~ ~ ,~ ..~ . . i i MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, Sep:~ember 169 19639 Continueda 1779 ' i RECLASSIFICATION - N o.~ne appeared ta represent the petitionero ~ NOo 63-64-33 (Continued) No one appeared in opposition to sub3ect petitiono i Tt1E tiEARING WAS CLOSEDa Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed previous zoning action on sub3ect property, noting that the City Council had granted an extension of 180 days for the use of subject property under Variance Noe 1149 on June 119 19639 after a public hearing, further noting for the Commission that plans on file were similar to those submitted under the variancee The Comr.~ission reviewed the plans and noted that landsc~.ping was not proposed, that it was the desire of the Commission to perpetuate the beautification of South Los Angeles Street along with the rest of the City9 and that the petitioner should be pre~ent to indicate what was being proposed for sub3ect propertyo Mro David Collins9 1077 West Ball Road9 appeared before the C~mmission and stated that the petitioner had purchased sub3ect property several years ago in anticipation af obtaining the Plymouth new car agency9 that the plans submitted for the Commission's consideration are similar to the agency operated by thd qetitioner in Garden Grove, that the variance was granted on the condition thAt sub~ect property would be developed under a reclassification within 3 yezrsa Commissioner Sides stated that the plans submitted with sub~ect petition were originally proposed for the Anaheim structurey but were later built in Garden Groveo Comtnissioner Pebley offfered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petition for Reclassification Noo 63-64-33 to the meeting of October 14, 1963, in order ~that the petitioner might be present, and directed the Commission Secretary to advise the petitioner of the continuance with an additional request that the petitior,~x• be present to aubmit additiona'1 information for the Commission's consideration relative to cars being parked westerly of sub~ect property, said parking being in violation of City regulationsa Commissioner Camp seconded the motione N10I'ION CARRIEDe RECLASSIFICATION PUBLIC FIEAR:NG. CHARLES Wo HUSHAW, et ai, 632 South State College NOo 63-b4-34 Boulevard, Anaheim9 California, Owners; CHARLES Wo HUSHAW, 632 South State College Boulevardy Anaheim9 California9 Agent; requesting that property deecribed ass Ten parcels o'r land forming a rectangle at the noxtheast corner of State College Boulevard end South St•reet with frontages of 635 feet on State College Boulevard and 100 feet on South Street, and further described as 566, 562, 604, 608y 612, 6169 622, 628, G32, and 638 South State College Boulevard be reclaseified from the R-19 ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZONE to the C-1, NEIGHHORHOOD COMMERCIAL, ZONE~ Commissioner Pebley left the Council Chamber at 8:05 PoMo, Mre Charles Hushaw, agent for the petitioners9 appeared before the Cotnmission and reviewed ^ the land use of ad~acent properties, further stating that the primary reason for~requesting a zone change wa~ because property had been developed primarily for commercial purposes to the north and west, and thet the City had recently approv~d commercial development for the northeast corner of Ball Road and State College aoulevard9 that it was the desire, of the owners of sub3ect property to sell their property and then move to a more desir- able residential area9 where highway traffic would not create hazards for the children, that subject properties could not be rented for the same rea$on, that the properties were separated rrom the residential homes to the east by an alley, and that plans were not submitted, becausE the owners did not plan to develop their properties, but only wanted the commercial zoning for resale pruposeso A letter approving the proposed reclassification was reado TFIE FIEARING WAS CLOSEDo - _ _. __..._ _...__ __...__ ._. ..__ _-- .... --- _._,_....._.. ___......_..._......_ _._.._... ..,: ~. -----~ - ~ --- _.___. .......__.~_. _... ___ .. __.._._..__----.._---- ~ _.. ( .~ t` ~ , ~ ~ _. , ; MINUTBS, CITY PLANt7ING COMMI33ION, September 16, 1963, Continued: 1780 - j ~ RHCIASSIPICATION - The Commission discussed the trend toward strip commercial ~ N0. 63-64-34 development for both the east and west side of State College ~ (Continued) Boulevard if subject petition were approved, that similar problems exis4 now at Hrookhurst, north of Lincoln Avenue~ where property formerly in the County was reclassified for commercial use of I~ existing homes without the requirement of coamercial front development and adequate ~ parking facilities, that the development was a hodge-podge of commercial development { which did not add anything to beautify the City, that many presently zoned neighborhood ~ commercial properties existed which were vacant, that the Commissio:: could not consider the fact that a street was a heavily traveled street as a, basis for rezoning property, : that when the proposed Orange Preeway was constructed, much of the heavy traffic would ; be removed from State College Boulevard, that the present residential use could be continued by the coastruction of masonry walis and shrubbery to lessen the noises ~ emanating from the heavy traffic, that if this were not possible by combining several ~ parcels and slight modifications to the existing structures, these could then be # developed for twa family and multiple family use, that the existing single family homes under consideration were stiil comparatively new to be removed for commercial purposes~ ; and then inquired oi ine t:iTY 27ngir1e2Y Y2~3P282~aioL+i2 "'::~ ::h~ ~~=-^•oO°- p*Pp~Ai~ ~~a ~ proposed for constructioa, and when the proposed widening of State Coliege Boulevard would take place. • j City Sngineer Arthur Daw advised the Commission that the Orange Preeway was proposed to be completed with3n 5 years, and tlzat the 3tate was rresently working on pians for widening 3tiate College Boulevard, and had scheduled conatruction for next year. The Commiasion expressed their concern that sub,ject petitioa had been submitted svithout any preliminary plana~ that similar petitioas aubmitted without plans had been recommended for deniai for land uae changes, and that a heavy traffic problem did not necessarily warrant a change to commercial zoning, The agent for the petitioner atated that aithough the reaidenta of the area i-ad been iafosmed that a atudy would be made of the area, only the auggeated masonry wall in the front yard was auggeeted. that achoola rvere being buiit to the soutih adding to the increase in traffic, and that they had been informed to aubmit preliminery plans~ but this was imposaible with ten ownera of parcela who had no immediate plana for the sale of their property. Mra. Monics Croft, 636 8outh 3tate College Houievmrd, sppeared before the Commiasioa in favor of aub,~ect petition aa oae of the ownera~ and etated that commerci~l development wsa highly dasirable, that North State Coilcge Bouievsrd had beea greatly improved after commeseial development waa eompleted, thot sub,~ect property could be aimilarly developed fer businees and profeasionsl uaes, that properties on btate Coilege Bouleverd eouid not be re~old for re~idential purpo~es bec~use of the aoiae~ duet~ sad traffic~ and that very few streeta were through street~ aad, thcrefose, State College Houlevard bore the brunt o[ the tr~ffic for automobiiea to the re~idential subdivisions eaetarly. Commi~aioaer Perry offerod Re~olutioa No. 013, Serie~ 19e3-64, and moved for ite paeaage snd adoption, ieeonded by C6mmi~iioner ROwland, to reeommeed to the City Cnuacil that • 8etitioa for Recla~eificatioa No, 63-64-34 be di~~pproved bued on the facte thot the petitioners did aot •ubmit preliminary pisa~ ot' deveiopment, that thi~ wouid aet s trend of develoqmeat of ~tsip ~ommarcial u~e• oa the es~t ~ed we~t •idei of State Coilege 8oulevard whieh would be detrinuntal to the re~ideatial eavironment elready eetabliehed ;d,~aeeat to the~e propastie~, th~-t the Coauai~oioa had reeommended to the City Couneii a communitywide p oiiey di~coura~inQ ~trip eommereial davelopr~ent along arterisl highwaye~ ~nd that altar •,{oint Commi~~ioa•Council maetiag,•the Plaaning ataff h~d been requa~ted to pro~sam preci~e plan ~tudie~ for pre~erving the re~ideatiai en~vizoament of sresa aion` Rr4erial hi~hway~. (aea Aa~olution Book.) Qa roil cali the fora~oin~ :e+~olution wa~ pa~~ed by the foliowin~ vote: AYBS: COMDlI9SIONSAa~ Camp, Oauar, MunQa11, Pebley, Perry, Rowland, didea. NOHds COMhlIa6I0N8RS~ None. ~eea~rr, ca~ieeior~te~ Aiir~d, cn•vo., _____-----.__ _. _ __ ...._.._._ _. - ---._._ __ .... .._ ,.__... _ ___ ~ , _ _ ..... --~-- ~. ~ _ , ~ . ; ~ ~ • :. ,~ ~ 1 ~ ~ MINUTE3, CITY PLANNING COD!lMIS3ION, Septe~nber 16, 1963, Continued: 1781 RBCLASSIPICATION ~ PUBLIC HBARING. HHHItY M. YLOU, et al, 214 Grand Avenue, Anaheim, N0. 63-64-35 and California, Owners; B~tIS BLI3PF, 1121 Goodrich Boulevard, Los Angeles 2Z, Califo*nia, Agent; property described as: CONDITIONAL USH A rectangular parcel of land at the northeast corner of Grand and PffitMIT N0. 497 Lincoln Avenues with frontages of 822 feet on Grand Avenue and 635 feet on Lincoln Avenue, except the westerly 70 feet of the southerly 112 feet, and the easterly 82 feet of the southerly 160 feet of the above desCribed property. Property presently clasaified as R A; RB3I.DENTIAL AQtICULTURAL, and C-3, I;Bppy COMMHRCIAL, ZOtPBS. R8QUBSTHD CIASSIPICATION: R-3, MUL:~PLB PAMILY RBSIDBNTIAL, ZONB. RHQUHSTED COND'1'"~'"4L UBE: HSTAHLISH A ONE AND TWO-STORY MULTIPLS PAMILY PLANNED RHSIDENTIAL DHVBLOPMBNT - WANE ONB-ST~tY HBIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 PBBT OP SINGI.B PAMILY ZONBD PRC~BRTY, AND WAIVH MINIMUM SI2B OP AN R-A PARCBL OP IAND. _-- -- ---- _- - _ _ _ : Mr. Sidaey Pischgsimd,reprr:senting the contractor, Mr. Phillip Mann, appeared before ~ the Commission and reviewed the propoaed developmeat noting that the proposed Geaeral t Pian projected sub,~ect property for mu~tiple family developmeat, and that Mr. Maan was ~ aiso available to answer questions. • ;, In resporise ta Cormnissiua questioning, the ageat advised the Commission that the ownera had given a long term let~se on subject property, that the northerly "Not A Part" would be utiiized,by one of the owners for an exiating pipe yard, aad that the aoutheast "Not A Part" parcel was to be ased as a reaidence by the mother of one of the ownera, and would not be deVeloped at any foreseeable time. The Coamission discuased the fact that the aoutheasterly "Not A Part" would create a lesa th}n an acre R-A, parcei, and since the developer etated that no development piaas were pr6poaed, that a variance ahould be filed to permit a iesa thaa aa acre parcel, and deter~nicied from the agent that a variance would be filed, should this be made a condition of approval, and that the atreeta proposed would be private atreeta~ aad trash truck pickup would be through private aezvice. Mr. Robert Garateng, 11217 Old River 9chool R~ad, Downey, owner of property at 3307 Weat Lincoln Avenue, appeared in oppoaition to aub,ject petition.and etated that frontage on Liaeoin Avenue ahould be developed for commeseiai purpoaea, that Lincoln Avenue wae one of thd few atreeta in the City which exteaded :~eyond ita limite, that reaidents of the apartmenta would be aub,~acted to the same aoiaea, odora~ aad other auieances of a buay atreet, that eommescial development axieted and waa propoaed for the south aide of Lincoln Avenae, that thia trend of davelopmeat ahould continue along Liacola Aveaue~ and that a~ultiple fa~aily development couid then be developad between the commercial and the multiple family reaidential norlherly of eub,~act property. The Commiaeioa ~tated that devolopmeat oF Lincola Aveaue through tha eatire width of the ~City•weu3d raduca centrai eommereiai dietricta ~o neceeeary Pos the City'~ growth, thst the.probiem crested would be similar to that now faeieg South Oste where strip commereiai zoniag along maJor streete wae permitted ~nd no deairabi~ large shopping nree wae developed~ and although a portian of eub~ect property hsd beea zoned for heavy commercial developmeat, no demsnd had been showa for development of the property for heavy commercial uee, Commiasioner Perry ieft tha Couacil Chamber at 8:30 P.M. Mr. Phiilip Mann, in rabuttal et~ted that commascial develo~mEnt had been attempted for eight (8) yeara, but no desirnble tenRata couid be obtaieed to mske tnie 4 deeirable and profitable commercial srea. ~ ~ -- ------- --_._._....._..-------------.____ __----._-_.,.~.--- ~--_____ _ _._..___ --..----------~-•: ~ ~ : -~ d'1r ` l ) ~J' `!~ MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3eptember 16, 1963, Continued: 178z RBCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Harold Leedy, 816 East Chestnut Street~ 3anta Ana, owner of two N0. 63-64-35 parcels on the south side of Lincoln Avenue adjacent to Harding 3treet, appeared before the Commission and stated that he opposed CONDITIONAL U8H development of the Lincoln Avenue frontage of subject proper:y for PBRMIT N0. 477 multiple family purposes, and that he concurred with Mr. Garstang (Continued) in requesting that the Lincola Avenue frontage of subject prope*ty be deveioped for commercial purposes. Commi$sioner Perry returned to the Council Chamber at 8:55 p.M. A letter of opposition from the Centralia 3chool District was read to the Commission. THB HBARING WA3 CLOSBD. The Commission discussed the plans and the possible rfquirement of a 35-foot setback for any structures fronting on Lincoln Avenue, with a masonry wall and landscaping in the 35 foet setback, together with a 15 foot setback, a masonry wali and landscaping in the setback area for Grand Avenu.:, and that the acre parcel to the north presently considered "Not A Part" submit development plans when being proposed ior future muiiipie family developmeat. . Commissioner Pebley offered Resolution No, 914, Series 1963-64, and moved for its passage and adoption, seconded by Commissioaer Sides to recommend to the City Councii that Petition for Aeclassification No. 63-64-35 be approved subject to conditions. (3ee Resolution Book.) On roil cail the foregoiag reaolution was passed by the following vote: AYBS: COhAlISSIONffit9: Camp, Gauer, Mungali, L'ebley, Perry, Rowland, 8ides. NOB9: CONBdISSI0NHt5: None, AH9HNT: COMMI99IOIVBA9: Alired, Chavos. Commisaioner Sides offered Reaolution No. 913, 9eriea 1963-64, and moved for ita paesage and adoption, seconded by Com~aisaioner Perry to grant Petition for Conditional Uae Permit No. 477, sub,~ect to any propoaed etructurea frontiag on Liacoln Avenue being net back 35 feet from the front property iiae, a 6-foot decorative maaonry wsll and Sandacapiag in the front setback araa, together with a 15 foot setback from the froat property iiae on Grand Aveaue. a 6-foot decorative maeoary wali and land~caping ia aaid •:'ront setback area, and other crnditiona. (Sce Aesolution 8ook.) Oa roll cail the foregoing reaolution raaa paaaad by the foilawing vote: AY89: COMMIS$IW~IDEtat Camp, Gauer, Muagall, Pebiey, Perry, Rowland, Sidem. NOBaz C(~M1I5aI0N8RA: None, ABSBNTt COh9~lI8aT0IV~ta~ Al,lrad, Chavoo. RBCLA$$I~I('AiION - PUBLIC HBAAING. ALBERT TIKKBR, 7914 West Lincoln Ayence, Anaheim, N0. 63-64-3b California, Owner; BILLY J, KIKER, 725 Kenmore Street, Anaheim, California, Agent; property described as: An irregular parcel of CONDITIONAL USB land approximately 185 feet by 600 feet, the westerly boundary of pBRMIT N0. 479 said property being 110 feet east of Ridgeway Street, and the northerly boundary being 396 feet south of the centerline of Lincoln Avenue, and further described as 2914 West Lincoln Avenue. Froperty presently classified as R-A, AB8IDBNT7AL AQtICULTU1tAL, ZONB. REQU83TBD CI,A3SIPICATION: R-3, MULTIPLH FAMILY RHSIDBNTIAL, ZONS. RBQUBSTBD CONDITIONAL U~.S: ESTABLISH A TWO-ST(YtY MULTIPLE FAMILY PIANNBD RB31DBNTIAL DBVBLOl:+1HNT - WAIVE ONB-STCAtY HBIGHT LIMITATION WITHIN 150 PBBT OP 3INGLS PAMILY ZONBD PROPBRTY. ! t ; i i ~~ i S i ~ _.__. __. _---- _._.__...... _... .._.~_..--------...~___. _..._- _._.. ____ _.. _.. _ . _ -_ _ ~--- '..'"-- ,,~ , ._..... _ _ _ ..~. MINUTBS. CITY PLANNING COMMI38ION, 3eptember 16, 1963, Continued: 1783 ~ ! i ~ E ~ ~ ,... RBCIASSIPICATION - Mr. Biil RiRer, agent for the petitioner, appeared before the N0. 63-64-36 Commissior. arid reviewed the proposed development stating that the proposed use was the highest and best land use for subject property, CONDITIONAL USH and tHat he was available to answer questions. PffitMIT N0. 479 (Continued) The Commission reviewed the pians and noted that the front elevations were acceptable, but the rear elevations should be improved, that the proposed density was considerabiy higher than the Commission had approved for properLy to the west,.which was proposed to be developed under Tentative Tract of Map No. 5090, and that a street was proposed to connect witb astub street to the west, Zoning Coordinator Martin Sreidt reviewed the proposed coverage noting that a 50.696 coverage was being proposed in comparision to the desired 4096, that 31.3 dwelling units per net acre was proposed instead of th@ desired 20 dv~relling units per net residential acre, and thaY it was d~~sirous that clarification should be made relative to development of the southerly portion, since the northerly portion did not propose any recreatioaai area, and if said street was to be conaidered a dedicated street instead of an ailey, a tract map would have to be filed in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act. The agent stated that he realized thQt there were a number of problems to be solved in the proposed development, that he was open to ar.y auggestions, and inquired what the length of time was to file a tentative tract map, Mlr. Kreidt atated that it would 4ake at least two weeks for an engineer to conaider all tne faceta xn drawing a tract map, that upoa rece:lpt of the map~ copiea had to be aent to various County and 9tate departmeats for comments together with comments from various City departments, that a continuance of at least 4 weeks was necessary to accomplish all data perYanent to the filing of a tract map, and that the Planning Department would weicome an opportunity to work with the petitioner in resolving other development problems, if he and his architect wished to meet at a given time for said consultation, since the southerly portion was not proposed for immediate development but proposed to leave the existing residence on it for some time. T'he agent stated ihat he had been urged by the iepresentative in the Planning Department to submit plans for the southerly portion, that at present, only the northerly portion was proposed for development, and that an alley was proposed to stub on the Flood Control Channel from the easterly boundary of subject property to the street to the west. Mr. Rreidt advised the Commission that the zoning representative had urged the petitioner to propose the entire parcel for multiple family development, and since the Commission was reluctant to consider petitions without compiete development plans, the proposed second phase was suggested to the petitioner, and that since a tract map was required to be filed, development of the northeriy portion for multiple family develop- ment should incorporate a recreation area, and the southerly portion could remain in its present zoning. THS HHARING WA3 CL03$D. The Commission expressed the thought that the proposed plans presented to them was not an acceptable development, necause the State Subdivision Map Act required the filing of a tract map whenever streets were dedicated to the City, and that if the tract map was filed for the northerly portion, even though the southerly portion had been advertised, development plans had to be submitted, and if these pians were not submitted, the property to the south would not be reclassified. . Commissioner Rowland offered a motion to reopen the hearing and continue Petitions for Reclassification No. 63-64-36 and Conditional Use Permit No. 479 to the meeting of October 28, 1963, in order that the petitioner might file a Tentative Tract Map, and to consult with the adjacent property owners and the Planning Department to resolve development of subject property. Commissioner Sides seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. -- _~__...~. -_.~-.•--r_ _ _--- _ _ . ._:i~! . ( __ . _. _ ___._ __._._. .:' ,; ~. r_,~ ~".~ • ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ;` ( ~ ) t,~~ ~T MINUTBS, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, 3eptember 16, 1963, Continued: ' 1784 RBPQRTS AND - ITEM N0. 1 RBCQMMSNDATIONS RBCIASSIPICATION N0. 63-64-4 Psoperty located at the aouthwest corner of Katella Avenue and Ninth 3treet - and proposes reciassification of subject property to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, 2one - the Commission recommended subject petition for disapproval on July 22; 1963. 2oning Coordinator Martin Kreidt reviewed for the Commission the location of subject property, the original action taken by the Planning Commission, and the request of the City Council that subject petition be referred bacl: to the Conmission for consideration and report on a possible limited C-1 or C-0, Zoning, or any other recommendation the Commission may make concerning subject property. The Commission discussed the implications of the various commercial zones as they pertained to subject and abutting properties, the fact that the Commission had recommended disapproval of subject petition based on the fact that development plans were not available, and that a school would be constructed south of subject property. Commissioner Sides offered a motion to recommend to the City Coun^il that the Planning Comrnission would consider the C-0, Comnercial Office, Zone a co:np-itible classification for subject property provided that development plans were available for consideration, but that a reclassification of subject property to the C-1, Neighborhood Commercial, Zone would not be considered compatible to the area. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIHD. IZBM N0. 2 CONDITIONAL USH P3RMIT N0. 380 Orange County Buddhist Church approved by the Cor~missir,::, March 4, 1963, Resolution No. 668, Series 1962-63 - request for 180 days extension of time. Zoning Coordinator Martin Kreidt read a letter to the Commission in which the petitioners requested an additional 180 days in which to comply with conditions of subject resolution and further noted for the Commission the location of subject prooerty. Commissioner Perry offered a motion to grant the request for an additional 180 days in which to comply with conditions, said extension of time to expire Pebruary 21, 1964. Commissioner Gauer seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIBD. ITHM N0. 3. A letter from Mr. Maurice Pinto was read to the Commission in which the owner of subject property requesf,ed that the Commission permit the transfer of the "Bit of Holland" restaurant to a~smaller space within the same building, and permissibn to have additional storage space adjaceat to the existing market. The Commission discussed the petitioner's difficulties in leasing subject property, the effect, if any, of the requested changes to the originally approved plans, and was of the opinion :hat the requested changes were not a substantial deviation to the originally approved plans. ~ommissioner Camp offered a motion to approve the request of the petitioner under Conditional Use Permit No. 400 for the removal of the existing restaurant to another space within the building and additional storage space, since the proposed changes would not be a substantial change from that originally approved, Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. MOTIOh CARRIBD. t ~~ . ~ . . . . . ._.. . ._. _ _ .. .. , ._.__.... .... __. _ ~ . . . . . . . . .. . .. ~ ~ • ~ , . .~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ MINUTES, CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, September 16, 1963, Continued: 1785 REPORTS AND _ ITEM NOo 4 RECOAM~NDAT IONS (Continued) Required landscaping in the 20 foo•t setback area of the automobile agencies located on South Los Angeles Streeto Commissioner Sides requested that the Commission discuss the variation of landscaping in the building setback area of the various automobile sales agencies located on South Los Angeles Streety noting that the area although zoned for light industrial development, no longer is being used as suchy that development had occurred in the past without land- scaping being required, that some agencies on the west side of Los Angeles Street, north of Ball Road were only required to landscape six (6) feet of the setback9 whereas, that property south of Ball Road was required to install 20 feet of landscaping, that such landscaping might obstruct the view of potential purchasers of cars driving past the various agencies, and that since only a few parcels remained to be developed on the east side of Los Angeles Street south of Ball Road•, some provision might be considered for a reduction of the required 20 feet of landscaping in the setback area of those areas devoted to outside saleso Commissioner Pebley stated that Mro Owen the owner of some of the parcels, was in favor of the 20 foot landscan"g, that no one had previously opposed the P-L, Zone landscaping re- quirements, that th presently existing indust~ial property had extensive landscapinq, together with othei business structures installing the required landscaping namely Buzza Cardozo9 John Kilroy CooY CMA., Odyssey Restaurant, etco, that Steffy Buick was required to install a six (6) foot strip nf landscaping north of Ball Road, which was located in a commercial area, that this landscaping was attractive, and that the Commission might consider waiver of a portion of the P-Ly Zone when application was made through a conditional use permit'; Commissioner Rowland said the basis for requiring landscaping for given setbacks was to maintain the continuity of the existing landscaping9 and to soften the harshness which was ; evident in a commercial and industrial development, that the program of beautifying Anaheim was gradually becoming a realityy that anyone in business could use some greenery to enhance the establishment, and that Buzza Cardozo had spent many thousands of dollars for their ~. landscapingo Commissioner Perry expressed the desire to make a study of these landscaping ~ requirements existing on South Los Angeles Street~ Commissioner Sides then stated that he disagreed with some of the statements made9 that he had been informed by five automobile dealers that the 10 and 20 foot landscaping in the setback was unfair to a business which depended apor. the outside display of their merchandise, ; and that a hard and Fast sule was not mandatory to maintain the attractiveness of an areao ~ Commissioner Camp expressed the opinion that if the landscaping requirement of one car agency was for six feet, this should be maintained for all new car developmentso Commissioner Gauer stated that standards had been established before the automobile dealers- ships moved into the South Los Angeles Street areao Commissioner Sides then stated that many cars were displayed outdoors9 whereas the established industrial and office developments did not depend upon outdoor disp:~y for their business since some were just service type business, and that if landscaping were required for the front setback area of each newly est'ablished business itshou'ld conform to the established landscaping in the areay ratheT than deviation ~hat exists with no landscaping at Casey- Beckham and McCl:+res, very little landscapi~g at Anaheim Dodge, and none being required for a used car lot, and that some standards should be developed by the Planning Department and approved by the Commission and City Council for various landscaping areaso Commissioner Sides offered a motion to direct the Planning Department to make a study of the landscaping requirements on South LOS Angeles Street from Vermont Avenue to the Santa Ana Freeway9 to ascertain a reasonable landscaping requirement since the required landscaping in the 50-foot P-L, Zone seemed unreasonai:le considering the trend of development of said properties with automobile agencieso Commissioner Camp seconded tl:e motiono MOTION CARRIEDo ADJOURNIu~NT - There being no further business to discuss, Commissioner Pebley offered a motion to ad~ourn the meetingo Commissioner Camp seconded the motiono MOTION CARRIBil. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 0'clock P.M. Respectfully submittedo ~ ~ ~ nn Krebs, Secretary _ . _ _ _ _..... ., __...._ ___ .. .~ _ ~*:. . . ~ _ .. . __. .. .